Jules said he is not bound by the Appellate Term’s holdings
Quality Health Prods., Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51231(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014) “At the trial, the judicial hearing officer refused to allow
Quality Health Prods., Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51231(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014) “At the trial, the judicial hearing officer refused to allow
Donoso v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 04071 (1st Dept 2014) Plaintiff claims that she suffered permanent consequential and significant limitations of
Promed Durable Equip., Inc. As Assignee of Shavonne Flinch v Geico Ins., 2014 NY Slip Op 72449(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014) You can read this. From the
Ward v Lincoln Elec. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 02668 (1st Dept. 2014) I think this might be a way around the Appellate Term peer hearsay paradigm
Vargas v Sabri, 2014 NY Slip Op 01666 (1st Dept. 2014) In the world of the use of bio mechanical engineer issues, this case is actually a
Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50130(U) “Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the Civil Court properly overruled plaintiff’s hearsay objection to
Fisher v Hill, 2014 NY Slip Op 00830 (4th Dept. 2014) It is infrequent that I post on the serious injury threshold. But a Plaintiff on a
Bacani v Rosenberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 00737 (1st Dept. 2014) “As this Court previously found, the opinions of plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harrigan, failed to raise a
Jesa Med. Supply, Inc. v NYC Tr. Auth., 2013 NY Slip Op 52007(U)(App. Ter 2d Dept. 2013) “Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendant was not required to
Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly, 2013 NY Slip Op 07283 (4th Dept. 2013) (1) CPLR 4518 (a) challenge: “We conclude that plaintiff met its initial burden
Siemucha v Garrison, 2013 NY Slip Op 07608 (4th Dept. 2013) Point #1: Unsworn to chiropractic report (affidavit?) was proper because it was unobjected to (nothing new) and
Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51759(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013) “Plaintiff’s only argument, both before the